Rule-based System for Quality of Life Evaluation in Socio-Cultural

Field

Martin Šanda and Jiří Křupka

Institute of System Engineering and Informatics, Faculty of Public Administration, University of Pardubice,

Studentská 84, Pardubice, Czech Republic

Keywords: Evaluation, Fuzzy, Indicators, Quality of Life, Rules, Rule-based System.

Abstract: This article deals with the quality of life in European Union. The objective of this article is to analyse the

possibilities of quality of life evaluation on the European level based on selected indicators. For evaluation of

quality of life is used expert system and fuzzy sets. User gives the value of a total of thirteen indicators of

socio-cultural field, which are divided into three areas. The indicators are selected from several methodologies

for evaluating the quality of life and are divided into areas with similar principles and characteristics. Selected

methodologies are Active Aging Index, Eurofound, the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Better Life

Index.The expert system determines rating for each area and for total rating of quality of life for the selected

country. In the conclusions of this paper are other options for adjustments and expansion.

1 INTRODUCTION

Quality of life evaluation (QL) (Mandys et al., 2009;

Qlru, 2011) is not a simple matter and often can be

this evaluation problematic in many regards. It was

produced (and will be produce) a lot of different

types, different methodologies and approaches to the

QL evaluation. So QL evaluation is very complicated

issue, then is appropriate to "take the help of"

software or programming tools such as decision

making models, expert systems or just rule-based

systems. QL can be viewed as availability of options,

from which an individual can pick during filling his

life (Phillips, 2006; Royuela et al., 2010). This term

refers to human existence, comprehension of meaning

of life itself of individual being. QL includes

individual way of life (lifestyle), not only individual

living conditions, but also living conditions of wider

groups of society as a whole (Rapley, 2003).

2 QUALITY OF LIFE

EVALUATION

The concept of QL is difficult to define and various

authors and various organizations approach to the

concept of QL it differently. For the evaluation of the

QL it is necessary to use indicators, using which you

can specific areas or issues of QL quantify. Any such

assessment is complex, it is necessary to assemble the

various indicators with regard to the subject and

evaluation criteria (Mederly et al., 2004; Šanda and

Křupka, 2015).

2.1 Subjective, Objective Quality of

Life

Enhancing the QL is an explicit policy goal of many

countries, yet it is rarely studied using models that

relate objective measures to the subjective

evaluations of residents (Von Wirth et al. 2015).

Subjective QL (Mederly et. al., 2004) is the sum

of each individual's subjective inputs, such as

opinions, attitudes, personal system of values,

adaption, manner of perceiving the environs, etc.

Research of subjective QL of people is very difficult

- every human life is unique and each person has their

own individual notion. This unfortunately poses

problems such as the willingness of respondents, their

uncertainty in responses or their different system of

values in job, in family etc.

Objective QL (Mederly et. al., 2004) can be

considered as specific, measurable generally living

conditions and living standards achieved by an

individual person or whole population. Among the

factors influencing the objective QL belong a number

342

Šanda, M. and K

rupka, J.

Rule-based System for Quality of Life Evaluation in Socio-Cultural Field.

DOI: 10.5220/0006007803420347

In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT 2016) - Volume 1: ICSOFT-EA, pages 342-347

ISBN: 978-989-758-194-6

of indicators such as average wage, access to services

and education, access to health care, quality of the

natural environment etc.

2.2 Indicators of Quality of Life

QL is evaluated by use of indicators. The evaluation

of QL is a difficult thing. Number of similar opinions

and approaches (Křupka et al., 2010; Šanda and

Křupka, 2015) exist regarding the relevant set of

indicators and the concrete evaluation tools used for

this area. For example in the Czech Republic, the

Czech Statistical Office (CSO) includes among the

QL indicators (CSU, 2013) “changes in demographic

developments”, and “security of inhabitants”, other

QL indicators used by the CSO are: GDP per

inhabitant, revenues per inhabitant, level of

employment/ unemployment, housing, security and

health expenditures, culture expenditures and

expenditures for travelling as free-time and aging

related activities.

Individual indicators then form a set of indicators

or the whole methodologies for evaluating the QL.

2.3 Selected Methodologies for Quality

of Life Evaluation

We have selected following assessment

methodologies (approaches) of QL evaluation in this

paper (and for this rule-based system): Active Ageing

Index (AAI, 2015); Economist Intelligence Unit

Limited (EIU, 2015); Eurofound (EF, 2015); Better

Life Index (OECD,2015).

2.3.1 Active Ageing Index

Active ageing index (AAI) is a tool to measure the

untapped potencial of older people for active and

healthy ageing across countries. It measures the level

to which older people live independent lives,

participate in paid employment and social activities

as well as their capacity to actively age.

Methodology AAI comprises four basic areas for

QL evaluation (AAI, 2015):

 Employment (indicators: Employment rate for the

age group 55-59, 60-64, 65-69 and 70-74);

 Participation in society (Voluntary activities, Care

to children, grandchildren, Care to older adults,

Political participation);

 Independent, healthy and secure living and

capacity (Physical exercise, Access to health and

dental care, Independent living arrangements,

Relative median income, No poverty risk, No

severe material deprivation, Physical safety,

Lifelong learning);

 Enabling environment for active ageing

(Remaining life expectancy achievement of 50

years at age 55, Share of healthy life years in the

remaining life expectancy at age 55, Mental well-

being, Use of ICT, Social connectedness,

Educational attainment of older persons).

2.3.2 Economist Intelligence Unit

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) evaluation

(EIU, 2015) has a large scale of usage, such as

perceived level of development comparison. The EIU

evaluation quantifies problems that could be

presented to inhabitants regarding life style in a given

area. The EIU evaluation makes possible direct

comparison between individual places. The result of

this evaluation can be also used for e.g. decision about

allocating subsidies or grants for an individual city for

its further development and support. Basic areas

(indicators) are (EIU, 2015):

 Stability (indicators are Prevalence of petty crime,

Prevalence of violent crime, Threat of terror,

Threat of military conflict, Threat of civil

unrest/conflict);

 Healthcare (Availability of private healthcare,

Quality of private healthcare, Availability of

public healthcare, Quality of public healthcare,

Availability of over-the-counter drugs, General

healthcare indicators)

 Culture and Environment (Humidity/ temperature

rating, Discomfort of climate to travellers, Level

of corruption, Social or religious restrictions,

Level of censorship EIU rating, Sporting

availability, Cultural availability, Food and drink,

Consumer goods and services);

 Education, (Availability of private education,

Quality of private education, Public education

indicators)

 Infrastructure (Quality of road network, Quality

of public transport, Quality of international links,

Availability of good quality housing, Quality of

energy provision, Quality of water provision,

Quality of telecommunications).

2.3.3 Eurofound

The Eurofound (EF) has developed (Eurofound,

2015) three regularly repeated surveys to contribute

to the planning and establishment of better living and

working conditions. The European Quality of Life

Survey (EQLS), implemented in 2003, 2007 and

2011-12, provides a comprehensive portrait/picture

of living conditions in European countries. It contains

Rule-based System for Quality of Life Evaluation in Socio-Cultural Field

343

a broad range of indicators on different dimensions of

QL, both objective and subjective.

The EU evaluation works with seven basic areas

(Grijpstra et al., 2014):

 Subjective well-being (indicators are Life

satisfaction, Happiness);

 Living standards and deprivation (Proportion of

households with both rent or mortgage and utility

arrears, Satisfaction with standard of living);

 Work–life balance (Proportion of employees

coming home from work tired at least several

times a month, Proportion of employees having

difficulties at least several times a month fulfilling

family responsibilities, Proportion of employees

having difficulty concentrating at work at least

several times a month);

 Family and social life (Satisfaction with family

life, Satisfaction with social life);

 Home, housing and local environment (Mean

number of rooms, Satisfaction with

accommodation)

 Health, healthcare, education and other public

services (Satisfaction with health, Perceived

quality of healthcare, Satisfaction with education,

Perceived quality of educational system,

Perceived quality of public transport, Perceived

quality of state pension system);

 Quality of society is represented by tension index.

It use scale of 5–15, where 5 is no tension and 15

is a lot of tension. Respondents could indicate on

a scale from 1 to 3 (1 is no tension, 2 is some

tension, 3 is a lot of tension) how much tension

they perceive between the following groups: 1)

poor–rich; 2) management–workers; 3) men–

women; 4) old–young; 5) different racial and

ethnic groups. The tension index is the sum of

these variables, which gives a tension index score

for each respondent that ranges from 5 (no

tension) to 15 (maximum tension).

2.3.4 Better Life Index

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) have their QL evaluations.

The OECD (OECD, 2015) executes evaluation of

primarily member states by means of OECD Better

Life Index (BLI), where the evaluation of QL is a part

of sustainable and inclusive growth, the OECD BLI

evaluation works with basic areas (OECD, 2015):

 Housing (indicators are Dwellings without basic

facilities, Housing expenditure, Rooms per

person);

 Income (Household net adjusted disposable

income, Household net financial wealth);

 Jobs (Employment rate, Job security, Long-term

unemployment rate, Personal earnings; indicator

of Community is Quality of support network);

 Education (Educational attainment, Student skills,

Years in education);

 Environment (Air pollution, Water quality);

 Civic engagement (Consultation on rule-making,

Voter turnout; indicators of Health are Life

expectancy, Self-reported health);

 Life Satisfaction (indicator Life satisfaction);

 Safety (Assault rate, Homicide rate);

 Work-Life Balance (Employees working very

long hours, Time devoted to leisure and personal

care).

3 RULE-BASED SYSTEM

Rule-based system (RBS) for QL evaluation in the

European Union is based on selected indicators (from

the socio-cultural field) and their values. RBS's

first operation is that the user enters a value of the

concrete indicator. These indicators are divided into

three areas (according to similarities, principles and

common characteristics). RBS then determines the

rating for these three areas, which are the basis for

total rating. The total rating is based on the evaluation

of three areas and defined rules in this system.

3.1 Indicators for Evaluation

For this system were used thirteen indicators selected

from stated methodologies (AAI, 2015; EIU, 2015;

EF, 2015 and OECD, 2015) within the socio-cultural

field. Selected indicators are in Table 1.

Table 1: Selected indicators.

Indicator Approach

Employment AAI

Participation in society AAI

Social or religious restrictions EIU

Level of censorship EIU

Sporting availability EIU

Cultural availability EIU

Tension index EF

Perceived quality of state pension system EF

Satisfaction with social life EF

Satisfaction with family life EF

Satisfaction with standard of living EF

Civic engagement BLI

Work-Life Balance BLI

These indicators are divided into three areas: The

first areas (labeled as AREA-MIN) comprise

ICSOFT-EA 2016 - 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications

344

Employment, Social or religious restrictions, Level of

censorship and Tension index, because are in this area

all indicators that are minimalist (minimum values in

the ideal case). The second area can be called "public

administration" (AREA-PA) because the indicators

are associated with public administration - Perceived

quality of state pension system, Participation in

society, Civic engagement, Cultural availability,

Sporting availability. The third area is "Satisfaction"

(AREA-S). As the name suggests, these are indicators

that assess satisfaction - Satisfaction with family life,

Satisfaction with social life, Satisfaction with

standard of living, Work-Life Balance.

3.2 Structure and Principle of RBS

RBS structure can be divided into three basic layers -

the lower layer are the above-mentioned indicators,

the middle layer is created of three areas and high

layer is the total rating or goal QL evaluation. The

principle RBS can be describe in three steps: 1) the

user enters name (or symbol) of the evaluated state

and values of all indicators into the RBS; 2) RBS

saves the values and consequently according to

defined rules determines ratings for three areas; 3)

RBS determines total QL evaluation in the country

based on the rating of areas (according to defined

rules).

The user enters the rating of indicators 0-100 (so

it is a percentage value). Some of the selected 13

indicators are in the range 0-10, then will be modified

at range 0-100 (in percent). An indicator Tension

Index is then necessary to convert (value 5 is 0% 6 is

10%, …, 10 is 50%, … and 15 is 100%).

The areas are then evaluated for average values of

indicators, with the exception AREA-MIN - In this

area is average rating of indicators still deducted from

one and then has area finally rating. Similar case is

in the total evaluation. Fuzzy sets for areas rating is

in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Areas rating with fuzzy sets - % rating of area and

membership function of % rating.

Every area can be evaluated from four options:

very-stable (84-100%), stable (68-88%), unstable

(46-74%) and very-unstable (0-56%). The area rating

is tuned sensitively using fuzzy sets and based on the

fact that the QL evaluation is resembles as

exponential curve (AAI, 2015; BLI, 2015; EF, 2015;

EIU, 2015).

Total evaluation of QL are based on rating of

areas (according to defined rules). Options for total

rating are: perfect-QL (88-100%), very-good-QL (76-

90), good-QL (60-80%), bad-QL (40-66%) and very-

bad-QL (0-50%) in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Total evaluation with fuzzy sets - % total

evaluation and membership function of % evaluation.

The number of options for areas rating and the

total evaluation is based on (EIU, 2015; Hlaváčková

et al., 2010).

3.3 Rules and Evaluation

Rules for evaluating QL in the programming tool

fuzzy CLIPS will be discussed in the following lines

(Cross and Firat, 1997). The value of indicators are

entered by the user, the areas are then evaluated for

average values of these indicators and total evaluation

of QL are based on rating of areas, as already

mentioned. The code in fuzzy CLIPS is an example,

that the user entered values of indicator Employment

(indicators in Table 1). In the same way the user

entered the remaining twelve indicators (word

EMPLOYMENT would be changed to

PARTICIPATION_IN_SOCIETY, then to

SOCIAL_OR_RELIGIOUS_RESTRICTIONS etc.).

(defrule read_EMPLOYMENT

(initial-fact)

(printout t “Value of employment

is: (0-100)" crlf)

(

bind ?string (read))

(assert (EMPLOYMENT ?string)))

Rule-based System for Quality of Life Evaluation in Socio-Cultural Field

345

In the program must be defined the range and the

rules for areas's rating as well as for the total

evaluating QL. This is example of code in fuzzy

CLIPS for defined areas's rating (code is for area

AREA-S) and based from Figure 1:

(deftemplate AREA-S

0 100 %

(

(very-stable (pi 8 92))

(stable (pi 10 78))

(unstable (pi 14 60))

(very-unstable (pi 28 28))

)

There is example of code in fuzzy CLIPS for

defined total evaluation (code is based from

Figure 2):

(deftemplate QL-TOTAL

0 100 %

(

(perfect-QL (pi 6 94))

(very-good (pi 7 83))

(good (pi 10 70))

(bad (pi 13 53))

(very-bad (pi 25 25))

)

Rules for the total evaluation are follows:

QL is perfect if all the areas are evaluated very

stable.

(rule

(if AREA-MIN is very-stable and

AREA-PA is very-stable and AREA-S is

very-stable)

(then QL is Perfect-QL))

QL is very good if all the areas are evaluated

very-stable or stable (except 3x very-stable).

(rule

(if (AREA-MIN is very-stable or

stable) and (AREA-PA is very-

stable or stable) and (AREA-S is

very-stable or stable)

(then QL is Very-good-QL))

Good QL is for all variants, which are not

described. It is an "average" rating and includes for

example the rare cases (rating areas will be unstable,

very-very-stable and unstable); QL is bad if all the

areas are evaluated very-unstable or unstable (except

3x very-unstable) and QL is very bad if all the areas

are evaluated very-unstable.

At the end of the program is this information

(total evaluation for country) "print out" for user.

4 CONCLUSIONS

QL evaluation using a rule-based system can be very

beneficial - system will be evaluated based on defined

rules, whether subjective or objective indicators. The

rules have to be defined very sensitive because it is

very important for correct function of RBS. In this

case it is created with fuzzy sets.

As an added incentive for editing and

development of RBS for greater sensitivity and

greater credibility is QL evaluation include: take into

account the weight of individual indicators

(eventually of areas), it can be choose other

methodologies for QL evaluation, include more

(varied) indicators or it choose other of field QL

evaluation (economic, health, etc.)

It could be also evolve form of the input data -

values of indicators given by user.

In this case is an objective evaluation - the user

enters values that are based on previous

measurements or investigations. It can be developed

for user's subjective evaluation - userself's assessment

(feelings, impressions, etc.). It can would use the (for

example) range of indicators rating: excellent,

average, Satisfactory, unsatisfactory and the user can

applied his subjective evaluation (it would be

necessary to draw up rules for evaluating areas on the

basis of this supplement). QL evaluation would not

have to concern only the countries, but it can be used

for city's or region's evaluation.

QL evaluation of EU states could then also be

supplemented with a "pattern matching" it could be

the EU average and the result would be the country's

position in memberships countries in EU. As another

similar case can be applied to the Visegrad Group.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article was supported by the projects No.

SGS_2016_023 of the Ministry of Education, Youth

and Sports of CR with title “Economic and social

development in private and public sector” at the

Faculty of Economics and Administration, University

of Pardubice.

ICSOFT-EA 2016 - 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications

346

REFERENCES

Active Ageing Index. (2015). Concept, Methodology and

Final Results. Available on: http://www1.unece.

org/stat/platform/display/AAI/V.+Methodology.

Český statistický úřad. (2013). Vybrané parametry kvality

života, pages 1-27. Available on: http://www.czso.cz/

csu/2014edicniplan.nsf/t/410026193B/$File/32019214

a04.pdf.

CROSS, V.V. and A. FIRAT. (1997). FuzzyCOOL: fuzzy

set theory in CLIPS Object-Oriented Language. In 1997

Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy

Information Processing Society - NAFIPS (Cat.

No.97TH8297). IEEE, pages 73-78. DOI:

10.1109/NAFIPS.1997.624014. ISBN 0-7803-4078-7.

Eurofound. (2015). Surveys Eurofound. Available on:

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys.

EIU. (2015). Liveability Ranking and Overview. In The

Economist Intelligence Unit. Available on:

http://www.investtoronto.ca/InvestAssets/PDF/Report

s/EIU-Liveability-Ranking-and-Overview-August-

2015.pdf.

Grijpstra, D., de Klaver, P., van der Graaf, A., Veldhuis-

Van Essen, Ch., Weijnen, T. (2014). The 3rd European

Quality of life survey quality of life in Europe: trends

2003-2012. ISBN 978-928-9711-265. Available on:

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2

014/quality-of-life-social-policies/quality-of-life-in-

europe-trends-2003-2012.

Hlaváčková, E., Hodačová, L., Csémy, L., Šmejkalová, J.,

Čermáková, E. (2010). Kvalita života českých dětí. In

Československá psychologie, volume 2, pages 138-146

Vol. 5. ISSN 0009-062X.

Křupka, J., Kašparová, M., Jirava, P. (2010). Modelování

kvality života pomocí rozhodovacích stromů. In E & M

Ekonomie a Management, volume 13, pages 130-146.

ISSN 1212-3609.

Mandys, J., Jirava, P., Kašparová, M., Křupka, J. (2009).

Determinants of quality of life within a region. In:

Recent Advances in Environment, Ecosystems and

Development. In Energy and Environmental

Engineering Series. WSEAS Press, Atheny, pages 229-

234.

Mederly, P., Topercer, J., Nováček, P. (2004). Indikátory

kvality života a udržitelného rozvoje. In UK FSV

CESES. ISBN 80-239-4389-8.

OECD. (2015). Bettr Life Index – Edition 2015. Available

on: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=B

LI#

Phillips, D. (2006). Quality of life: Concept, policy and

practice. In Routledge, pages 276, London.

QLRU. (2011). The quality of life model. In Quality of life

research unit. University Toronto, Toronto. Available

on: http://www.utoronto.ca/qol/qol_model.htm.

Rapley, M. (2003). Quality of Life Research: A Critical

Introduction. In SAGE, pages 286, , London. ISBN 978-

0-7619-5456-9.

Royuela, V., Moreno, R., Vayá, E., (2010) Influence of

Quality of Life on Urban Growth: A Case Study of

Barcelona. In Regional Studies. Vol. 44., Issue 5, pp.

551–567. ISSN 0034-3404 (Print), 1360-0591 (Online).

Šanda, M., Křupka, J. (2015). System thinking in social

system modelling. In System approaches‘15:

interaction of soft and hard systems, pages 5-11, Praha:

Oeconomica. ISBN 978-80-245-2125-1.

Von Wirth, T., Grêt-Regamey, A., Stauffacher, M. (2015).

Mediating Effects Between Objective and Subjective

Indicators of Urban Quality of Life: Testing Specific

Models for Safety and Access. In: Social Indicators

Research, pages 189-210, volume 122, issue 1, DOI:

10.1007/s11205-014-0682-y. ISSN 0303-8300.

Available on: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-

014-0682-y.

Rule-based System for Quality of Life Evaluation in Socio-Cultural Field

347